bosch_get_batteries

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that each call captures a snapshot building a time series, implying idempotent reads. However, it omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, data freshness, or any side effects, which would be helpful for an agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement, a bullet-like list of returned fields, a key behavioral note about time series, and an Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on input parameters and behavior rather than return shape. It covers time series usage and parameter details well. Minor gaps include no mention of output structure (though schema compensates) or potential limitations like rate limits, but overall it is adequate for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by explaining all four parameters in the Args section, including formats (YYYY-MM-DD), defaults, and behavior (latest_only controls history). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it returns battery state and health for Bosch eBikes, listing specific data fields (charge level, energy, capacity, cycles, software version). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on snapshot and time series data, though sibling comparisons are not explicit; the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use parameters (e.g., latest_only=False with date range for history) and provides default date ranges. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like bosch_battery_trends or bosch_get_soc, lacking exclusion criteria or comparative guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.